MICHELLE SANTIAGO HASKINS vs STATE OF FLORIDA

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: September 23, 2022
• Docket: 22-0760
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

MICHELLE SANTIAGO HASKINS,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D22-760 LT Case No. 21-CT-000268-AOS

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed September 23, 2022

Appeal from the County Court for Osceola County, Gabrielle Sanders-Morency, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Glendon George Gordon, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Richard A. Pallas, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. In this Anders1 appeal, we affirm Michelle Santiago Haskins’ judgment

and sentence. We remand, however, for the trial court to identify the authority

for the $271 in court costs it imposed during sentencing. See Cash v. State,

286 So. 3d 384, 385 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) (“The law is well settled that trial

courts lack the authority to impose costs and fines in criminal cases unless

such imposition is specifically authorized by statute and the statutory authority

is cited in the defendant’s written disposition order.” (quoting J.S. v. State,

920 So. 2d 752, 753 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006))).

AFFIRMED and REMANDED.

SASSO, TRAVER and NARDELLA, JJ., concur.

1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).